Old Mission postcard: land protection taxes benefit farmers – and neighbors

In a land with vistas that put a postcard to shame, residents of Old Mission Peninsula have twice voted to tax themselves so that cherry orchards and vineyards stay that way.

The immediate beneficiary: Farmers that might otherwise sell to real estate developers eager to capitalize on the peninsula's scenic charms. They get a check for their property's development market value in exchange for guaranteeing the land will remain agricultural.

Thus far, some 6,000 acres of Peninsula Township's 18,000 acres have been preserved through this program and other conservation measures. That represents about two-thirds of its agricultural land.

And while it could be termed yet one more version of agricultural subsidy, many residents believe they profit in this equation as well.

“You are preserving what you moved out here for,” said Mark Nadolski, a realtor who migrated to the peninsula from suburban Detroit in 1973. “You move here for a reason, to preserve the beauty, to look at the farmland. It's a no-brainer to save that. As a realtor, I probably lost some money in not promoting development. But at the same time, I can sleep at night.”
 Shaped by glaciers, the 16-mile-long peninsula juts like a finger into the blue-green waters of Grand Traverse Bay just north of Traverse City. The same geographic traits that define its beauty also explain its value to fruit farmers: The temperate surrounding waters form a protective micro-climate, while its spine-like central ridge drains cold air from crops.

The first cherry orchard was planted in 1852, foretelling what would become the peninsula's primary crop. Concentrated on the peninsula and surrounding region, Michigan farmers grow 75 percent of the nation's tart cherry crop.

But back in 1994, no one was quite sure how voters would respond when they were asked to approve 1.25 mills over 15 years to raise an estimated $2.6 million. Officials estimated it would be enough to preserve 2,000 acres.

“The survey that we commissioned said that we would have a close vote. It was a crap shoot,” recalled Rob Manigold, a lifelong peninsula resident and township supervisor since 1988.

But by a margin of 53 percent to 47 percent, they said yes. It was the first such approval in the Midwest and launched the most successful program of its type in the state.

Prior to the vote, Manigold said, there had been growing concern that encroaching development would mar the quality of this rural community, which had a population of 5,533 in 2010.

That was amplified by the sale of a farm along the peninsula's main highway and its conversion to a housing development, he recalled. Just a few months before the vote, residents could see workers burning brush as they cleared the land.

“It was being bulldozed and put into subdivisions. People would call up and say their kids were crying when we drove by. That kind of hit home,” he said.

According to the Land Trust Alliance, a Washington D.C.-based nonprofit conservation organization, a researcher queried 23 longtime farm families on the peninsula prior to the vote. All but two said they would like to pass their farm on to their children but that costs had gotten so high their children couldn't afford to buy it.

In 2002, voters approved a second millage, adding .75 mills and extending both millages to 2021. This time, nearly 60 percent approved.

Bern Kroupa, a cherry farmer with a couple hundred acres, figures the peninsula would look a lot different today without it.

“We would probably have a lot more of what I call wildcast housing, helter-skelter, unplanning incursions into farmland. They usually don't work well together. It would have been a dispiriting and ugly landscape.”

Realtor Nadolski recalled that he moved from Farmington Hills, a community which has undergone significant change since he lived there.

“What could have happened here happened down there. It was farms, wetlands, open land. Now it is a concrete jungle, buildings and highways.”

Facts matter. Trust matters. Journalism matters.

If you learned something from the story you're reading please consider supporting our work. Your donation allows us to keep our Michigan-focused reporting and analysis free and accessible to all. All donations are voluntary, but for as little as $1 you can become a member of Bridge Club and support freedom of the press in Michigan during a crucial election year.

Pay with VISA Pay with MasterCard Pay with American Express Donate now

Comment Form

Add new comment

Dear Reader: We value your thoughts and criticism on the articles, but insist on civility. Criticizing comments or ideas is welcome, but Bridge won’t tolerate comments that are false or defamatory or that demean, personally attack, spread hate or harmful stereotypes. Violating these standards could result in a ban.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Comments

Andrew Paterson
Mon, 09/23/2013 - 5:41pm
While it is easy to believe that Peninsula Township could be in Leelanau county, it is, rather, a beautiful part of Grand Traverse county. Between this voluntary effort by the electorate to tax for preservation and the wholesale acquisition of thousands of acres by the federal government of Sleeping Bear National Lake-shore Park, and the Land Conservancy's efforts, Leelanau and Grand Traverse and its inhabitants have been blessed with a land of beauty that hopefully will remain for generations.
Barry Visel
Tue, 09/24/2013 - 10:59am
When our Township began experiencing subdivision sprawl from the north, we turned to more traditional tools to protect our prime irrigated farmland...planning and zoning. We proposed an Exclusive Ag Zone and our farmers agreed. That zone is now on the books. Cost to taxpayers...$0.
Charles Richards
Tue, 09/24/2013 - 4:38pm
I don't know the details of what happened in this case, but it could have been a case of "regulatory taking." It is not appropriate to expropriate some, or all, of the value of property by regulation. What happened in Grand Traverse county is wiser policy. Both parties benefitted from a voluntary exchange. The payment to the farmers exceeded the value of the scenic beauty to the other residents, and so they were able to come to an agreement. This is an example of what the late Nobel prize winning economist Ronald Coase was talking about when he said that if transaction costs were low enough, the solution arrived at by the parties involved would be the most efficient possible, and in society's interest.
Doug
Mon, 09/30/2013 - 6:03pm
I'm confused by your claims. First is your absolutist claim that it is inappropriate to expropriate "some" of the value of property. What do you mean by inappropriate? It's certainly legal, since any regulation is capable of diminishing the value of a property, and I assume you don't find any and all regulation "inappropriate." It's my understanding that regulatory taking law is mostly concerned with "how much" of the value has been expropriated, "whether" it's for public or private use, and "in what cases" it should rather fall under eminent domain and just compensation. Second, isn't it the farmers themselves in this case who wish to restrict the use of their land, thereby keeping the value down so that their kids might inherit/buy it and continue to farm it? I'm having a hard time seeing from where their "rising costs" are coming, unless it's taxes on agricultural land that has a speculative value for development, but a zoning restriction would presumably remove that speculative value. As it's described in the article, this comes across as a bribe to farmers to keep farming. Not that I have a problem with that (as you say it's voluntary, and it doesn't harm any public interest), it's just that I'm curious (as is Barry) why a more economical solution to this problem wasn't attempted.
Gordon Hayward
Sun, 10/06/2013 - 5:37pm
As the Peninsula Township Planner when Peninsula Township developed the Farmaland and Openspace Program I think that is is important to realize that the value of the Develoment Rights (the right to develop the land for residential or commercial uses) was determined by appraisal and the property owners voluntarily signed a conservation easement in perpituity in favor of Peninsula Township for the full appraised value of the development rights being sold. This is different from zoning regulations which are a temporary regulatory action and for which there is no monetary compensation involved. The basis for the program was laid out in the Township Comprehensive Plan which detailed the values to the farmers and to the other property owners in the Township.